The Etiology of Homosexuality (and divorce and ...)

The 'meaning' and 'causes' of homosexuality -male or female, are gravely misunderstood. Below is a brief discussion which identifies homosexuality as neither 'wrong' nor 'peculiar' nor much of anything other than inherent human evolution.
Observation of three facts is in order before that discussion, but only the third is especially important. First, and intrinsically, homosexuality is 'progenitively non-viable' (make what the reader will of that). Second, that 'homosexual disposition'
may be genetic -call that mechanism 'pheromone' or whatever, is in fact a distinct possibility.

Evidence however, has nowhere been identified to anything of 'proper, scientific conclusion'(*8) -notable where general 'intuition' and misbelief run counter. Third, and 'scientifically blessing the whole of what follows' is that (within
the framework of this essay) it is NO ONE'S to decide what is or is not 'proper sexual expression', especially for theintersexed(*9) -not 'god nor government's. As to the nature of homosexuality (over which there is too
much 'noise in the system'), the following is a brief etiology.

The whole of our viability -our genetics, is based upon a prohominid evolution of what is inseparable and supercessionally-efficient 'sex-and-companionship'. Given that, primate and anthropological studies both suggest that whatever homosexual
expression lay along that evolution, it eventually became manifest (thru co-evolving congregationalism and diasporation) out of what was essentially 'nurturing woman' and 'provisional (and safeguarding) man', the unit 'trying to stay alive'
-female, of sex-drive moderated by reproduction et cetera, and male, of a sex-drive 'expression' compromised by that nurturing(*1).

Evolution however, thru increasing deliberative capability, facilitated staying alive into successively more efficient same-sex cooperation of women nurturing and men provisioning with daughters and sons respectively learning and assisting
-eventually, societal and civilizational same-sex communion(*2) -of profound changes in sexual relationships. What for the male had been 'as much sex possible of whatever provisional hetero-companionship necessary' sometimes
became 'whatever homosexual companionship necessary', and what for the female had been 'as much provisional hetero-companionship necessary of some sexual compromise necessary' sometimes became 'homosexual companionship that was both
physiologically and psychologically comfortable'. -Nor does this suggest that men are sex-crazy and/or women undersexed. Men, physiologically speaking, 'hassle' women towards sex, and women, also physiologically speaking, feel hassled for
it; the sometime result then, is communities of relatively unhassled sex for each.

[The fact is that 'something of a primitive homosexuality' may be found in the incipient sexual expression of almost any warm-blooded animal group 'adolescents' -but, typically, it disappears or becomes vestigial as heterosexual expression becomes
possible and preoccupational(*3). More than anything else however, it was The Industrial Revolution that introduced and 'pejoratively' advanced same-sex communion -only a matter of time before women drawn into supporting the family would
become (more or less) 'financially independent' as men -much as now so, neither however, having intellectually risen above the primitive same-sex 'communion' that predated that revolution. Western advertising and consumerism are so sex-biased in
this respect -American in particular, as to make more difficult still any communion between the sexes today.]

Crucial here is that what makes us hominids is 'consciousness of companionship', and homosexuality then, is inherent because we cannot all be always companionate and 'commune with the opposite sex' -intersex, especially then, not only guarantees
'the existence of homosexuality', but 'blesses it therein too'(*4 -more below). It is easier for many people, consequently -bonding a typically important factor, to take that same-sexual communion into physical sex than it is to
develop a more general, asexual communion where that property does not (thus-far-sapiens) exist -and should be developed during formative youth. We have in effect, yet to come into an intelligent supercession of a factionalizing, still-primitive
'idiomatics'(*5) that has nothing to do with the phenomenology of hominid evolution (and sex). Men and women are different physiologically, but they are '-in the nature and course of hominid evolution', of an essentially same and
inseparable 'deliberative capability' which identifies an inevitable, non-factional communion where the homo- or heterosexuality of companionship is of no more than progenitive importance(*6). What this suggests is that as the
intellectual communion intrinsic of men and women increases 'in the nature and course of human evolution and progression', so too may heterosexual expression -not to any repudiation of homosexuality, but to a proper understanding of the roll of
'intellectual communion' in all human relationships, even to the 'sexual outsider's spouse abuse, 'cheating' and child molestation.

Homosexuality is 'genetic' then, only in the sense that 'communion and companionship' is a function of the many sex and persona-forming genes and associated processes -at least lifetime and historical, that enter one's being(*7).
And what is 'wrong' in our relationships then, is that the same-sex communion that started to factionalize some 4,000 years ago -circumstantially, at the burgeoning of 'civilizational' life-style-and-quality, is driven, now, largely by
consumption-promoting commercialization (a function of our 'civilizational sophistication') of little concern for 'non-money-making intellectually knowledgeable communion'. The bottom line remains that if sexual expression does not develop out of
'difficult' heterosexual communion -and it cannot always, it develops naturally out of same-sexual companionship.
[The reader might consider for a moment that whatever his or her own 'sexual orientation', on a desert island with an only one other person of either sex or orientation, sex would inevitably 'rear its ugly, little head', and 'accommodation' of
some kind be made regardless of either.]

October 11 2003 Economist MagazineA lesbian's sexual identity seems to be established before her birth

MEN and women blink differently when startled. That simple and well-established observation has led Qazi Rah-man of the University of East London, in England, and his colleagues to evidence supporting the idea that homosexuality is a
characteristic which people are born with, rather than one they acquire as they grow up. The team's research, just published in Behavioral Neuroscience, shows that lesbians blink like heterosexual men. That, in turn, suggests that the part of
their brain that controls this reflex has been masculinised in the womb.

* Anyone who is startled by an unexpected noise tends to blink. If, however, the startling noise is preceded by a quieter sound, this blink is not so vigorous as it would otherwise have been. It is this lack of vigour which differs between the sexes. Men
blink less vigorously than women when primed in this way.
* Given such a clear and simple distinction, testing the responses of homosexuals to noise seemed an obvious experiment to do. So Dr Rahman and his colleagues did it. Their subjects, men and women, gay and straight, were sat down one by one in a dimly
lit room. The muscles that cause blinking were wired up with recording electrodes, and the subjects were fitted with headphones through which the sounds (sometimes a single startling noise, and sometimes a combination of soft and loud) were fed.
* In the latter case, as compared with the former, straight men had blinks that were 40% less vigorous. In the case of straight women the drop was 13%. Lesbians' dropped 33% which, statistically, made them more similar to straight men than straight
women. Gay men were also intermediate, although in their case the difference was not statistically significant. Even in this apparently trivial matter, it seems, lesbians have male-like brains. So what is going on?
* By default, people are female. Without the influence of testosterone in the womb, a fetus will develop into a girl. The way testosterone acts to turn a fetus male is still poorly understood. It seems likely, though, that different organs respond
independently to the hormone, and may do so at different times. Hormonal surges at critical moments could thus cause particular organs in an otherwise female body to become "male". (A lull in hormone production might have the opposite effect.)
If the organ concerned is the brain, the result is more male-like behaviour including, possibly, male-type sexual preferences.
* Previous research has provided some evidence for this idea. Lesbians; for instance, are more accurate throwers of objects such as darts than straight women. In this they resemble straight men in a way that has nothing to do with sexual preference. And
tissues other than the brain's may be affected, too. On average, lesbians have ring fingers that are longer than their index fingers, a feature that is typical of men but not of heterosexual women. In that context, a difference in the blink of an eye is
no surprise at all.

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA -Each year, a few babies are born with a male set of chromosomes and female sexual organs. This sex reversal, called Swyer syndrome, can happen when changes in a protein called SRY impair its function. Previously reported
SRY mutations interfere with the protein's ability to bind to DNA. But recent data, including some presented here this week at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB), show that in some cases, the altered protein has trouble
entering the nucleus of fetal male gonadal cells. Thus, genes that should be turned on by SRY to make testes remain off. "We now show a completely different mechanism as to how someone can become an XY female," reports cell biologist David Jans
of Monash University in Victoria, Australia.